"Charles: The Heart of a King" by Catherine Mayer (2015)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dman

Imperial Majesty
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
15,827
City
Midwest
Country
United States
Charles: The Heart of a King by Catherine Mayer-

"He has lived his whole life in the public eye, yet he remains an enigma. He was born to be king, but he aims much higher. A landmark publication, Charles: The Heart of a King reveals Prince Charles in all his complexity: the passionate views that mean he will never be as remote and impartial as his mother; the compulsion to make a difference and the many and startling ways in which the heir to the throne of the United Kingdom and fifteen other realms has already made his mark.

The book offers fresh and fascinating insights into the first marriage that did so much to define him and an assessment of his relationship with the woman he calls, with unintended accuracy, his 'dearest wife': Camilla. We see Charles as a father and a friend, a serious figure and a joker. Life at court turns out to be full of hidden dangers and unexpected comedy.

Poignant, funny and often surprising, the first significant study of the Prince in over a decade reveals a man in sight of happiness yet still driven by anguish and a remarkable belief system, a charitable entrepreneur, activist, agitator and avatar of the Establishment who just as often tilts against it.

Based on multiple interviews with his friends and courtiers, palace insiders and critics, and access to Charles himself during research lasting more than a year, this biography explores the Prince’s philanthropy and his compulsive interventionism, his faith, his political leanings and the philosophy that means when he seeks harmony he sometimes creates controversy.

Gripping, at times astonishing, often laugh-out-loud, this is a royal biography unlike any other."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Charles-Heart-King-Catherine-Mayer-ebook/dp/B00O72S27U

‘The Heart of a King’ – authorised biography of Prince Charles set for 2015
 
Charles, Heart of a King by Catherine Mayer

I couldn't find a thread about this so I hope this is OK.

There's a new biography of Prince Charles entitled "Charles, Heart of a King" and its written by Catherine Mayer. It sounds interesting and I'd like to read it. Catherine Mayer spent six months talking to Prince Charles and over fifty of his friends. Amongst some of the things Charles told her is that the staff call his court at Clarence House "Wolf Hall" because of how it is divided.

Prince Charles's friends rally round over controversial claims in new biography - Telegraph
12 things we now know about Prince Charles from his new biography - Telegraph
 
I think this was being discussed in the 'Monarchy Under Charles' thread. Maybe the mods will move stuff around so everything is in one place.
 
I think this was being discussed in the 'Monarchy Under Charles' thread. Maybe the mods will move stuff around so everything is in one place.
That sounds good :)

This book, I hate that people will believe things from it without checking the background.
 
The fact that the author had access to Charles and his staff, makes me really interested in reading this book.
 
Last edited:
The fact that the author had access to Charles and his staff, makes me really interested in reading this book.

I feel the same way. I have rarely read royal biographies, but this one I may well read. Even if Charles and his staff have given facts and the author has embellished them or turned them into something they are not, it shouldn't be too difficult to read between the lines and work out what is likely and what is not.
 
This book is just rubbish.

Prince Charles: Hellbent on being a meddling monarch | Daily Mail Online


Prince Charles: Hellbent on being a meddling monarch. New book reveals ambition that could cause a British constitutional crisis.

In September, the Queen will become Britain's longest-serving monarch
But her popularity raises questions about Prince Charles' future reign
He is planning to make a considerable impact in his first six months
A new book reveals his ambition that could cause a constitutional crisis
It's believed he is turning his attention to overhauling the honours system
His official biographer believes a 'quiet constitutional revolution is afoot'
It's believed he will intervene beyond scope of any previous monarchs

He will not intervene beyond scope of any previous monarchs and and he will not cause a constitutional crisis. He knows what he's doing, he's not stupid.

Prince Charles's treacherous household 'like Wolf Hall', courtiers say - Telegraph

Prince Charles’s household is so torn apart by power struggles and treachery that courtiers have nicknamed it Wolf Hall, according to a new book.
Staff working for the Prince have reportedly likened Clarence House to the Tudor court of Henry VIII, where backstabbing and infighting was commonplace.
The revelations appeared in a new biography of the Prince by Catherine Mayer, a journalist for Time magazine, who met the Prince and spoke to some of his closest aides.
In parts, the book paints a devastating portrait of the future king grappling with insecurities while struggling to effectively manage his many charities and business interests.
Charles: The Heart of a King, by Catherine Mayer, suggests Clarence House is riddled with “glaring systemic weaknesses”. Any criticism of the Prince - who is known to courtiers as ‘the Boss’ – can send him spiralling into “despair”, she says.

The author adds that turf battles between Charles’s staff “are common and bloody”.
In extracts reported in The Times, she writes: “One former householder refers to Clarence House as Wolf Hall, in reference to the treacherous and opportunistic world depicted by Hilary Mantel in her fictionalised account of the rise of Thomas Cromwell under Henry VIII.”
Much of the difficulty is caused by Charles’s inability to create clear roles for his staff, she writes. Often he reportedly creates unnecessary turf wars between courtiers by failing to set clear boundaries.

I don't believe in this nonsense, he has done a very good job with the Duchy of Cornwall.

However in response to the book, royal aides revealed Charles has discussed the “sensitive matter” of what sort of king he should be with the Queen, and no one else.

Sources close to the Prince told The Telegraph that anyone who claims to have insight into his thoughts on kingship is merely “hypothesising” because “there is no-one other than his mother with whom he would discuss such a sensitive matter”.

A spokesman for the Prince said: “Speculation about what sort of king the Prince of Wales will make has been around for many, many years and the Household and the Prince have never commented on this and neither will they do so now.”

And this is one of the reasons I don't believe in this nonsense from Catherine Mayer.


This has been a bad start to what that should have been a another good year for the royal family with the royal birth and the Queen's milestone in September.

The fact that the author had access to Charles and his staff, makes me really interested in reading this book.

Prince Charles's friends rally round over controversial claims in new biography - Telegraph

A Clarence House spokeswoman said: “This is not an official biography, therefore, we have no comment to make.” Sources deny Ms Mayer was given any special access to the Prince for the book.
 
:previous:
the last comment is interesting as there are also sources (in the press) that say she did have access.
 
The author wrote a Time cover story on Charles last year. While writing the article, she was given access to Charles, his friends and his staff. So the sources are right when they say she wasn't given special access for this book, but she technically didn't need it since she had already gotten it for the article.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/oct/24/time-magazine-prince-charles

I feel the same way. I have rarely read royal biographies, but this one I may well read. Even if Charles and his staff have given facts and the author has embellished them or turned them into something they are not, it shouldn't be too difficult to read between the lines and work out what is likely and what is not.

Yep, I agree. I think it will be easy to tell her impressions/opinions from fact. More than anything, I'm interested in what Charles (and those close to him) have to say.
 
Charles crushes biographer's claim: Buckingham Palace says US writer who's painted a picture of Clarence House torn apart by turf wars had NO special access to the Prince* | Daily Mail Online

Kristina Kyriacou, Prince Charles's head of communications, said yesterday that the publishers had overplayed suggestions of official co-operation. She told The Mail on Sunday: 'It is not an official book. The author did not have the access as claimed. Clarence House has no further comment.'

Royal sources said Ms Mayer did attend a dinner with the Prince, but was one of 75 guests and had no access to the top table.

Like other journalists, she joined the Royal rota to cover Prince Charles at work. To suggest there was intimate access is overblown.

Ms Mayer's biography is one of three forthcoming books claiming to offer new detail about Charles, including one by American Sally Bedell Smith, who has written biographies on the Queen and Princess Diana. One source said there seemed to be a 'race' between the two women to publish first.

'Perhaps that is why Catherine Mayer is claiming to have had more access than she did. Both books are unofficial,' he said.

Tony Blair's former spin-doctor Alastair Campbell is also bringing out a book which claims to have new information about Charles.
 
Last edited:
What's interesting is that Clarence House is claiming she had no special access, yet they didn't object to the Time article that stated that she did have access. On top of that, Charles posed for the Time Cover photo.
 
The Times is going to serialise the book - hence their interest. This is from another article today.
QUOTE:
A Clarence House spokeswoman said: “This is an unofficial biography and the author has not had the access that is being claimed. No one in the prince’s employ or within the royal household has ever speculated on what sort of king the Prince of Wales would make and nor will they do so now.”
END
 
What's interesting is that Clarence House is claiming she had no special access, yet they didn't object to the Time article that stated that she did have access. On top of that, Charles posed for the Time Cover photo.

I think its semantics on the part of Clarence House. Mayer did in fact interview many of Charles's friends and staff. Whether one wants to call this 'special access' or just plain access is a matter of spin.

The funny thing is the book isn't that critical of Charles. The upcoming BBC documentary if released will prove to be much more damning from a PR perspective.
 
Last edited:
The comment about the book being unofficial and the author having not actually had access to Charles and his staff is strange. I wonder how she knew all the information about Charles in the "12 things we now know about Prince Charles" article from The Telegraph...

I still think it would be an interesting read.

I think this was being discussed in the 'Monarchy Under Charles' thread. Maybe the mods will move stuff around so everything is in one place.

There was just an article posted in that thread and the book itself wasn't really being discussed, so I thought it would be good for it to have its own thread. Lots of other royal biographies and autobiographies are mentioned in this forum, so I thought it was fair that this book should be mentioned here too.
 
The Telegraph mentioned that in The Heart of a King, Charles still grieves for his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth and his granduncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten.
The Prince was very close to these two relatives.
Was not Lord Mountbatten seen as a second grandfather for Charles because his paternal grandfather, Prince Andrew of Greece, was deceased when Charles was born?
 
The Telegraph mentioned that in The Heart of a King, Charles still grieves for his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth and his granduncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten.
The Prince was very close to these two relatives.
Was not Lord Mountbatten seen as a second grandfather for Charles because his paternal grandfather, Prince Andrew of Greece, was deceased when Charles was born?

I think it's not that simple. What ever is?

From what I understand, Lord Mountbattan was the father Charles never had in Philip, sad to say. :sad:
 
It is hardly an earthshattering scoop that Charles still grieves for those that were closest to him in his formative years. His parents were often away for large stretches of time and his grandmother and great uncle filled the gap.

As to this 12 new things . . . . cobblers!

The information about Blackadder was well known back in the time, as indeed was his skill as a mimic.

He made a sharp rebuke to a jounralist who asked about how hard it was to waid so long to be King, pointing out the obvious, namely that his accession to the throne was predicated on the death of his mother and, not surprisingly he wasn't in any hurry for that.

He dreads the death of his parents! Wow, like everyone I know can hardly wait to tapdance on their parents caskets . . .

And the rest of the "12 points", like the rest of the book, is either from information freely available or pure conjecture on the part of the author.

Actually, I think there are more than a few people, on this board alone, that could write an unauthorised biography of Charles just from the information available in the public domain.
 
Last edited:
Prince Charles lawyers to examine 'unhelpful' book - Telegraph
The Prince of Wales’s staff and lawyers will scrutinise a controversial biography of him when it is published after expressing concern that the author used “artistic licence” over her claims about meetings with the Prince.

Clarence House lawyers will take action if there is anything they believe to be “grossly untrue” and “detrimental to the Prince”, though no complaints have been made about extracts published so far.

Charles: The Heart of a King, written by the Time magazine journalist Catherine Mayer, will be published on Thursday, which will be the first time the Prince’s staff have a chance to read it in full.

Because the book is not authorised, no advance copies of the manuscript were provided to Clarence House.

The Prince’s aides have let it be known that they feel Ms Mayer has overstated the amount of access she had to the Prince while researching the book.
 
I think its semantics on the part of Clarence House. Mayer did in fact interview many of Charles's friends and staff. Whether one wants to call this 'special access' or just plain access is a matter of spin.

The funny thing is the book isn't that critical of Charles. The upcoming BBC documentary if released will prove to be much more damning from a PR perspective.

Yep, agree. She did get access, but only for the article. Now she's using that access for a book and Clarence House is (understandably) upset, because they didn't grant her access so she could write a biography.

The comment about the book being unofficial and the author having not actually had access to Charles and his staff is strange. I wonder how she knew all the information about Charles in the "12 things we now know about Prince Charles" article from The Telegraph...

I still think it would be an interesting read.

According to Clarence House, she was given access for a Time article. They never expected her to use that information for a biography. So they're upset because it makes it seem like they cooperated for this book, when they really didn't.
 
Last edited:
Yep, agree. She did get access, but only for the article. Now she's using that access for a book and Clarence House is (understandably) upset, because they didn't grant her access so she could write a biography.



According to Clarence House, she was given access for a Time article. They never expected her to use that information for a biography. So they're upset because it makes it seem like they cooperated for this book, when they really didn't.
Indeed, Ms Mayer decided to make money out of her 'exclusive access' story; she was apparently included in a dinner at Dumfries house with 'stonkingly rich people' (with such language, you know there is going to be a problem' and went from bad to worse. If anyone is willing to part with the fee to read this article,be my guest.:bang:
EXCLUSIVE: Prince Charles, Born to Be King but Aiming Higher | TIME.com
 
I think its semantics on the part of Clarence House. Mayer did in fact interview many of Charles's friends and staff. Whether one wants to call this 'special access' or just plain access is a matter of spin.

The funny thing is the book isn't that critical of Charles. The upcoming BBC documentary if released will prove to be much more damning from a PR perspective.
I think you will find them even handed when it comes to what slant they put on the Prince. Just because she said a few nice things does not change the fact that she had limited access for a Time article as opposed to the degree intimated that would almost equate to that of a personal biographer.
Yep, agree. She did get access, but only for the article. Now she's using that access for a book and Clarence House is (understandably) upset, because they didn't grant her access so she could write a biography.

According to Clarence House, she was given access for a Time article. They never expected her to use that information for a biography. So they're upset because it makes it seem like they cooperated for this book, when they really didn't.
Correct me if I am wrong but the amount of access required to research for a personal biography would surely entail far greater access and input from Charles himself let alone the Butler to the Bootboy with sonic ears!
 
Last edited:
Queen's concerns over Prince Charles becoming king, claims new book | Royal | News | Daily Express
Catherine Mayer's unofficial biography, Charles: The Heart of a King, claims that the Prince of Wales' activism could give rise to a "potential new model of kingship".

Charles is known for speaking out on issues including the environment, architecture and farming.

The Government has routinely resisted pressure from a national newspaper to publish the Prince's private letters to ministers - named the 'black spider letters' because of his scrawled handwriting.

The tussle began when Guardian journalist Rob Evans applied to see the letters under the Freedom of Information Act in 2010.

The application was rejected and became the subject of an ongoing legal battle, which ended up in the Supreme Court.

It has now been claimed Her Majesty fears that the British population will not tolerate Charles' differing view on the role of the monarchy, when he succeeds her on the throne.

In an excerpt of the new biography – currently being serialised in The Times - Ms Mayer said: "In defining his role as heir apparent, the prince has signalled a redefinition of the monarchy.

"Some courtiers - and the sovereign herself - fear that neither the Crown nor its subjects will tolerate the shock of the new."
 
Author of Prince Charles biography denies overstating royal access | UK news | The Guardian
The author of a new biography of Prince Charles that claims his court is so riven by infighting it is known as “Wolf Hall” has hit back at royal aides’ allegations that she has overstated her access.

Clarence House aides have described as “unhelpful” the comparison with Hilary Mantel’s vision of the brutal court of Henry VIII in Catherine Mayer’s book, Charles: Heart of a King, which is published on Thursday. They have alleged “artistic licence” is being used to describe the amount of time Mayer, a senior editor at Time magazine, spent with Charles.

But Mayer on Monday insisted: “My Prince Charles biography is unauthorised and makes no over-claims about access.” She joked that a “meta-author” had apparently “gone round claiming to have written an authorised bio with oodles of special access”.
 
The writer of this book, was all over the Breakfast News channels this morning, publicising her work..she admitted she'd had limited access to the Prince, just 'two walks in the garden', [with other journalists present].
How she can claim to know 'the heart of a King', on that VERY limited basis, is beyond me..She had spoken 'to his friends [un-named] and other 'officials', however..
 
The writer of this book, was all over the Breakfast News channels this morning, publicising her work..she admitted she'd had limited access to the Prince, just 'two walks in the garden', [with other journalists present].
How she can claim to know 'the heart of a King', on that VERY limited basis, is beyond me..She had spoken 'to his friends [un-named] and other 'officials', however..

So basically it's not going to be worth my reading unless she verifies exactly who she spoke to and they confirm that they spoke to her. Yet another, unauthorised biography based on a few minutes chat and idle gossip! I may as well re-write Cinderella and pass it off as something new and make a few quid too!
 
Back
Top Bottom